Policies on land for housing attacked

Press, Volume CXIII, Issue 33276, 13 July 1973, Page 16

Policies on land for housing attacked

The Christchurch Regional Planning Authority had lost control of the situation in Christchurch, it was alleged at an Ellesmere County Council town-planning hearing yesterday.

The authority and the Ministry of Works were attacked for adopting what were said to be restrictive policies on land development in country centres round the city. Merntt-Beazley Homes, Ltd. asked the council for a change-of-use permit to allow 120 acres of farm land at Rolleston to be subdivided to provide up to 500 house sec-’ tions. Much of the company’s evidence was that this would provide cheap sections that could not be bought in the city. Both the authority and the Ministry objected to the application. The council’s town-planning committee, which heard the submissions, will make a recommendation to the council. “This application. if granted, could have a major effect on the growth of Rol-

leston. which may become one of the first satellite town developments in New Zealand.” said Mr C. C. H. Knight, for the company. “As the population would be doubled over the next few years, over-all policy should be established as a guide to development. This application is in the public interest. There is a critical shortage of land in Christchurch. The Christchurch Regional Planning Authority has expressed the opinion that extension of the urban fence is undesirable, as Christchurch is now of optimum size for town-planning. The authority has supported the creation of a satellite city, but no site has been decided upon.” “MANY HOMES” Mr Knight said that land would be lost to farming, but the benefits to the community would outweigh the use of land of not very high agricultural value. The develop- '

ment would enable hundreds, of families to have attractive' homes. Mr Knight said lie saw theobjection of the Ministry of' Works as a surprising anomaly. > No evidence had been seen that l the Ministry had an alternative plan for housing development, 1 or. if one existed, that it could be nut into effect without delay. . The planning authority’s ob-| jection. he said, appeared to be concerned with wider planning' issues. This the company endorsed. but the council should treat the application as the first stage of development. LAND SHORTAGE It had become much harder in the last two years to find housing land in Christchurch,; and the price had risen very! steeply, said Mr A. R. Merritt, the company’s managing-direc-tor. In 1971, the average price of a Christchurch house section,' fully serviced, was $2OOO to $2500. , Today, the Drice would not be less than $5OOO. and could be IsBooo. I The cost of a basic three bedroom house had risen from 1 $B2OO to $10,600, and for a! medium quality three bedroom; house from 59600 to $12,200. Loan, :limits had not kept up with in-; (flation and a young family! ; would need at least $5OOO more■ . than was available from the I i State Advances Corporation. DETAILS LATER The company, said Mr Merritt, I 'sought consent in principle,; I leaving details of development; I to be worked out between the ; council and the company. To Cr R. H. D. Hudson. Mr Merritt said that, depending on sewer costs, the price of one! of the company’s sections would (be about $3600. s Mr A. L. C. Fairweather, the company’s assistant manager, said that the Christchurch problem would only be overcome by looking for cheaper land outside the city. “I can’t imagine how a Government department could contend that this scheme is premature,” said Mr K. H. Frizzell, a town planning consultant, referring to the Ministry of Works I objection. i “The Government itself has had to take stop-gap action to stop land speculation, which has arisen because of the shortage of building land.” "NOT SOLUTION" As to the planning authority’s objection, it was very hard to see how a carefully planned and timed development could be described as contrary to planning principles, he said. Both objections would be met by the council’s implementing a further development programme. Mr P. Yeoman, a planning consultant, said that the main content of evidence produced in the last three years on urban zoning had been criticism and justification of the amount of land available. The authority contended that there was 6000 acres left for housing and that this would satisfy needs for the next 10 years. But. said Mr Yeoman, he believed the authority had lost control of the position and was primarily responsible for the extensive shortage of land in Christchurch. USE DESCRIBED To the east of the citv. he said, (all available land was subdivided 'for development. To the south,| the remaining land on the hills!

I was of limited capacity. The airi port limited development to the i west, and in the north, the land was limited by ground conditions' and plantations. “There would be two alternatives—the nucleus of a new I : major urban zone with a poten-: tiai population in excess of 100,000, or the encouraging of! the growth of the small centres: within 25 miles of Christchurch,". I said Mr Yeoman. “The first is socially undesir-! able and not economically' practicable. Already, because of; the pressures of Christchurch.' there has been an acceleration of the growth of all the small communities. The time has come when the further growth of Rol-; leston must be appraised.” M.O.W. EVIDENCE 1 Mr M. K. Edwards, a Ministry of Works planning officer, said he spoke for the Minister of works and Development (Mr Watt), who was concerned about the lack of planning strategy for the wider Christchurch region. ; He considered the application was inadequate in the light of the scale of the proposed development. | Although the deletion since ;! April. 1971.' of 1000 acres of ; rural land had given short-term .; relief for Christchurch, it was not likely to have much impact -1 in the long term, said Mr Edi; wards. : A long-term solution was! needed, but the council had not I combined to evolve a regional' strategy, and in its absence, it was not possible to assess the' (Rolleston proposal. "NO ALTERNATIVE" Cr H G. Stephens said the' 'Ministry had offered nothing: |constructive as an alternative. 1 There were so many alternatives to be considered, said Mr Edwards. Cr P. J. Abbott said that Mr Edwards had referred to the city’s being unable to contain its population growth. Was not the Rolleston scheme an answer? For the planning authority. Mr M. G. Barber, senior planning officer, said that any development outside the planned Rolleston township should be preceded by a policy defining the maximum ' development, as it was necessary < to control the she of settlements around Christchurch. OTHER SCHEMES Mr Barber said the council would be aware of other schemes, such as the Elgin Investments 100 acres adjacent to the Merritt-Beazley land, and the 520-acre scheme on the West Coast Road at West Melton. The Paparua County Council was investigating schemes for 1 Templeton and Prebbleton. He could not support any ■ scheme for a greatly-enlarged I Rolleston. It would be hard to limit growth, and was too close ' to Christchurch for many essen- ■ tial facilities to develop. Pres- , sure would develop on farm land, and sprawl could result. “The advisability of substan- ; tial urban development at this , location at any time is cues- ' tioned.” said Mr Barber. ‘The ] urgent need for a single, large- ; scale development does not exist at this location.” FURTHER OUT Answering questions. Mr Bar- ' ber said the authority would prefer to see development at settlements more than Rolleston's 15 > miles from Christchurch. This] I would not lead to “instability” of the intervening land. ; Cr D. H. Golden said both the county and the city had power Ito limit their urban fences.